Harrison v. HYSTER COMPANY
This text of 502 So. 2d 100 (Harrison v. HYSTER COMPANY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Charles David HARRISON and Vicky Euleen Harrison, His Wife, Appellants,
v.
HYSTER COMPANY, a Nevada Corporation, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
*101 Philip O. Allen and James A. Yancey of DeVane, Munson, Allen & Langston, Lakeland, for appellants.
Philip D. Parrish of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.
CAMPBELL, Judge.
We are presented once again with the question of whether the legislature's 1986 amendment repealing the twelve-year statute of repose that is contained in section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1985), should be applied retroactively to revive appellants' products liability claim filed on December 3, 1985. This court ruled in Small v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, 502 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), that the amendment did not have retroactive application. On the authority of that opinion, we affirm the final summary judgment of the trial court in favor of appellee.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
502 So. 2d 100, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-hyster-company-fladistctapp-1987.